Outpatient versus inpatient treatment for patients with acute pulmonary embolism: an international, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Although practice guidelines recommend outpatient care for selected, haemodynamically stable patients with pulmonary embolism, most treatment is presently inpatient based. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of outpatient care compared with inpatient care. METHODS: We undertook an open-label, randomised non-inferiority trial at 19 emergency departments in Switzerland, France, Belgium, and the USA. We randomly assigned patients with acute, symptomatic pulmonary embolism and a low risk of death (pulmonary embolism severity index risk classes I or II) with a computer-generated randomisation sequence (blocks of 2-4) in a 1:1 ratio to initial outpatient (ie, discharged from hospital ≤24 h after randomisation) or inpatient treatment with subcutaneous enoxaparin (≥5 days) followed by oral anticoagulation (≥90 days). The primary outcome was symptomatic, recurrent venous thromboembolism within 90 days; safety outcomes included major bleeding within 14 or 90 days and mortality within 90 days. We used a non-inferiority margin of 4% for a difference between inpatient and outpatient groups. We included all enrolled patients in the primary analysis, excluding those lost to follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00425542. FINDINGS: Between February, 2007, and June, 2010, we enrolled 344 eligible patients. In the primary analysis, one (0·6%) of 171 outpatients developed recurrent venous thromboembolism within 90 days compared with none of 168 inpatients (95% upper confidence limit [UCL] 2·7%; p=0·011). Only one (0·6%) patient in each treatment group died within 90 days (95% UCL 2·1%; p=0·005), and two (1·2%) of 171 outpatients and no inpatients had major bleeding within 14 days (95% UCL 3·6%; p=0·031). By 90 days, three (1·8%) outpatients but no inpatients had developed major bleeding (95% UCL 4·5%; p=0·086). Mean length of stay was 0·5 days (SD 1·0) for outpatients and 3·9 days (SD 3·1) for inpatients. INTERPRETATION: In selected low-risk patients with pulmonary embolism, outpatient care can safely and effectively be used in place of inpatient care. FUNDING: Swiss National Science Foundation, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique, and the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Sanofi-Aventis provided free drug supply in the participating European centres.

Midregional proadrenomedullin as a prognostic tool in community-acquired pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Midregional proadrenomedullin (MR-proADM) is a potential prognostic biomarker in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Previous work has been hampered by sample size and illness spectrum limits. We sought to describe the pattern of MR-proADM in a broad CAP cohort, confirm its prognostic role, and compare its performance to procalcitonin, a novel biomarker of infection. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study in 28 community and teaching EDs. Patients with a clinical and radiographic diagnosis of CAP were enrolled. We stratified MR-proADM levels a priori into quartiles and quantified severity of illness using the pneumonia severity index (PSI); and confusion (abbreviated mental test score of or= 7 mmol/L, respiratory rate >or= 30 breaths/min, BP < 90 mm Hg systolic or < 60 mm Hg diastolic, age >or= 65 years (CURB-65). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1,653 patients formed the study cohort. MR-proADM levels consistently rose with PSI class and 30-day mortality (p < 0.001). MR-proADM had a higher area under the curve for 30-day mortality than procalcitonin (0.76 vs 0.65, respectively; p < 0.001), but adding MR-proADM to the PSI in all subjects minimally improved performance. Among low-risk subjects (PSI classes I to III), mortality was low and did not differ by MR-proADM quartile. However, among high-risk subjects (PSI class IV/V; n = 546), subjects in the highest MR-proADM quartile (n = 232; 42%) had higher 30-day mortality than those in MR-proADM quartiles 1 to 3 (23% vs 9%, respectively; p < 0.0001). Similar results were seen with CURB-65. MR-proADM and procalcitonin levels were generally concordant; only 6% of PSI class IV/V subjects in the highest MR-proADM quartile had very low procalcitonin levels (< 0.1 ng/mL). CONCLUSIONS: In our multicenter CAP cohort, MR-proADM levels correlate with increasing severity of illness and death. High MR-proADM levels offer additional risk stratification in high-risk CAP patients, but otherwise MR-proADM levels do not alter PSI-based risk assessment in most CAP patients.